Why be against universal healthcare?

[Alceste]

Wise healthy people might consider that if they are lucky to live long, their health is bound to deteriorate.

No kidding. I haven't been to the doctor in years, but my 94 year old grandmother relies heavily on the system to maintain her independence and comfort. Two operations in four years, a bout of pneumonia, high blood pressure - there is always something. Because she has access to unlimited health care services on demand without worrying about the cost, she is still healthy enough to live independently in her own home. The alternative is not pretty to think about, but certainly far more costly.

 

[Copernicus]

There are some Americans who honestly believe that their federal government incapable of running an efficient, effective national health care system. That is not a totally crazy belief. All you have to do is look at the hamstrung Congress and the bloated federal deficit to convince yourself that the government is collectively incompetent. They can't even pass laws that have overwhelming support from the public (e.g. bans on high-capacity magazines) or fail to block damaging spending cuts that both parties claim not to want. The milquetoast PPACA is an extremely flawed law that needs a lot of reform to make it work as intended. At the same time, many of these Americans who are unsure about national health care firmly support Medicare and laws that force insurance companies not to discriminate for pre-existing conditions (i.e. what is actually in the PPACA). So there is a lot of inconsistency in what people say they want. ("Keep government hands off of Medicare!") I have been told by people who support Medicare that they do not think health care should be a right and that our system of health care is better than in any other country. But old people should have it. (If they live to the age of 65...er 66...er 67...)

 

[Skwim]

Is it "money down the drain" for a person to pay taxes for firefighters. . . .

Hmmm. Failed to get it.

Is infrastructure more important then people?

Hmmm. Another one.

I don't see why peoples' homes are considered "community infrastructure" but. . . .

And another.

Nobody's immortal. The number that's being thrown around on . . . .

And another

I am not following your argument. In the . . . .

And another

That's the silly part. Everybody needs . . . .

And another.

*Wink*

BINGO!!




Within my first post I inserted a very faint"ʞuıʍ ƃıq" ("big wink") and in my second post, #12, I inserted another very faint"ʞuıʍ ɹǝƃƃıq" ("bigger wink") because my statements were pretty absurd. I figured people would notice, figure out I wasn't serious, and move on. My apologies for not being clearer and wasting your time. I'm now over my momentary lapse into playfulness and promise to continue on as usual.

WINK
​

 

[Valjean]

Ultimately, universal health care would come out of everyone's pocket. And because the very healthy, and even the just plain healthy, wouldn't need it much, they wouldn't be taking advantage of the money they put into the pot. There's would be money down the drain, so to speak.

But it's already coming out of everyone's pocket. We're already averaging something like $6,000 in federal expenditure per capita per year for healthcare, and we're paying out-of-pocket and for insurance as well -- way more than other countries spend for universal coverage. Even a relatively expensive system like the UK's NHS spends less than $6,000 per capita, and the Brits never see a hospital bill or have any need for insurance.
We could spend a third what we do today and have the world's best system, if we chose to.

 

[Valjean]

There are some Americans who honestly believe that their federal government incapable of running an efficient, effective national health care system. That is not a totally crazy belief. All you have to do is look at the hamstrung Congress and the bloated federal deficit to convince yourself that the government is collectively incompetent. They can't even pass laws that have overwhelming support from the public (e.g. bans on high-capacity magazines) or fail to block damaging spending cuts that both parties claim not to want. The milquetoast PPACA is an extremely flawed law that needs a lot of reform to make it work as intended. At the same time, many of these Americans who are unsure about national health care firmly support Medicare and laws that force insurance companies not to discriminate for pre-existing conditions (i.e. what is actually in the PPACA). So there is a lot of inconsistency in what people say they want. ("Keep government hands off of Medicare!") I have been told by people who support Medicare that they do not think health care should be a right and that our system of health care is better than in any other country. But old people should have it. (If they live to the age of 65...er 66...er 67...)

The government is already running a very efficient healthcare systems -- the VA, and it's paying for an even more efficient private system -- Medicare. It's the insurance companies that are inefficient.

 

[Alceste]

Hmmm. Failed to get it.


Hmmm. Another one.


And another.


And another


And another


And another.


BINGO!!




Within my first post I inserted a very faint"ʞuıʍ ƃıq" ("big wink") and in my second post, #12, I inserted another very faint"ʞuıʍ ɹǝƃƃıq" ("bigger wink") because my statements were pretty absurd. I figured people would notice, figure out I wasn't serious, and move on. My apologies for not being clearer and wasting your time. I'm now over my momentary lapse into playfulness and promise to continue on as usual.

WINK
​

Nice Poe. Totally got me. I wasn't thinking - I'm too accustomed to seeing that nonsense regurgitated by people who actually mean it.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Extending people's lives so they can draw a check longer and be a burden on the system seems counter productive to me. Should we spend six figures on an operation that will allow a person to live another couple of years? What if their already costing the government 100K a year to live in a nursing home?

We all are going to die. Should we spend money we don't have on things that our children are going to have to pay for?

What is wrong with just living out our natural life?

We should have a health care system that we can maintain for generations not a system that drains our ability to provide for folks in the future.

Ask yourself something, which would be money better spent, 200K for grandma to extend her life for another year or a new house for a grandchild to live in and raise a family?

This house could provide for two or three generations.

You tell me which would be money better spent?

 

[lunakilo]

This is a stance I have never understood. Why would anyone be against the concept of making sure everyone in the country has equal access to quality healthcare? I mean unless you run or work for a health insurance company and thus worry about losing your job, what reason could anyone have to be against it? You'd think healthcare would be considered a universal right that everyone should have access to rather than having a good chunk of the country live in constant fear of bankruptcy should they ever get sick or injured because they either can't afford insurance or the only insurance they can afford is so **** poor that it doesn't do them much good anyway. So why is it? Why is anyone against universal healthcare?

Last time I asked this question here I got a lot of answers.
The readers digest version is that americans have their heads on backwards.

Most people on planet Earths seem to feel that not helping people in need is selfish.
Most americans however seem to feel that people who expect others to help them out if they are in need are selfish.

I never understood that way of looking at it either, but then again I ma not american

 

[lunakilo]

Extending people's lives so they can draw a check longer and be a burden on the system seems counter productive to me. Should we spend six figures on an operation that will allow a person to live another couple of years? What if their already costing the government 100K a year to live in a nursing home?

We all are going to die. Should we spend money we don't have on things that our children are going to have to pay for?

What is wrong with just living out our natural life?

We should have a health care system that we can maintain for generations not a system that drains our ability to provide for folks in the future.

Ask yourself something, which would be money better spent, 200K for grandma to extend her life for another year or a new house for a grandchild to live in and raise a family?

This house could provide for two or three generations.

You tell me which would be money better spent?

It is impossible to answer your question without knowing the price of a human life.
If I don't know the value of a human life it is impossible to tell if spending 200K to extend it is worth it.

Now I don't feel I can put a price tag on a human life, but you sound like you have given this some thought, so maybe you can tell me how much money a human life is worth. Tell me that and convince me that your price is set correctly and I will answer your question.

 

[crossfire]

Who wants there to be a monopoly on health care? (Keep in mind the big corporations view buying politicians as part of doing business.)

 

[Reverend Rick]

I never understood that way of looking at it either, but then again I ma not american

People are different. Should every every country be the same? If every country was exactly the same, why the need for different countries in the first place?

Americans left their mother countries to live a different life.

Now, many Americans want our country to be exactly the same as the countries we left.

 

[Copernicus]

Extending people's lives so they can draw a check longer and be a burden on the system seems counter productive to me. Should we spend six figures on an operation that will allow a person to live another couple of years? What if their already costing the government 100K a year to live in a nursing home?

We all are going to die. Should we spend money we don't have on things that our children are going to have to pay for?

As always, you raise good questions. And, as usual, you and I arrive at different answers. Neither the government nor private insurers can prevent death or afford all medical procedures. The real question here is whether to set ourselves the goal of ensuring that all US citizens have a right to a reasonable level of health care. If so, then how do we ensure that right? Should it be market-based or government-based? Or, more sensibly, what is the best combination of both approaches?

What is wrong with just living out our natural life?

Is natural life that which depends on no health care? Modern medicine has extended our expected lifespan. Should the average lifespan depend just on how wealthy you are? Wealthy people are always going to have longer average lifespans. We come back to the question of whether some level of health care ought to be a right.

We should have a health care system that we can maintain for generations not a system that drains our ability to provide for folks in the future.

I agree, but are you saying that national health care systems fail to do that? It appears that they work very well in other countries. Medicare and VA are far from perfect, but they seem to work quite well.

Ask yourself something, which would be money better spent, 200K for grandma to extend her life for another year or a new house for a grandchild to live in and raise a family?

This house could provide for two or three generations.

You tell me which would be money better spent?

That is a classic false dilemma. We do not face that choice here. The choice we face is between market-based and government-based approaches to health care delivery. Not everyone's grandma requires a 200K procedure. Not all grandmas live that long. For those that do face such health care, should the cost be spread around in the entire population, or should it just depend on how wealthy you are? Some families can afford both, but most would like grandma to get the best care she can.

 

[Valjean]

This is the advantage of government. As a co-op it can negotiate to obtain healthcare at wholesale rates, so grandma can get her procedure and the family can still afford that new house for the kids.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Extending people's lives so they can draw a check longer and be a burden on the system seems counter productive to me. Should we spend six figures on an operation that will allow a person to live another couple of years? What if their already costing the government 100K a year to live in a nursing home?

We all are going to die. Should we spend money we don't have on things that our children are going to have to pay for?

What is wrong with just living out our natural life?

We should have a health care system that we can maintain for generations not a system that drains our ability to provide for folks in the future.

Ask yourself something, which would be money better spent, 200K for grandma to extend her life for another year or a new house for a grandchild to live in and raise a family?

This house could provide for two or three generations.

You tell me which would be money better spent?

I think you're painting a false picture of what universal health care means. More often than not, the choice is more like this: would you rather spend a few hundred dollars a year helping a person make sure their diabetes is well-managed, or would you prefer to pay tens of thousands to amputate their foot in a few years, plus hundreds of thousands over their life in government disability payments now that they can't work in their trade?

 

[dawny0826]

This is a stance I have never understood. Why would anyone be against the concept of making sure everyone in the country has equal access to quality healthcare? I mean unless you run or work for a health insurance company and thus worry about losing your job, what reason could anyone have to be against it? You'd think healthcare would be considered a universal right that everyone should have access to rather than having a good chunk of the country live in constant fear of bankruptcy should they ever get sick or injured because they either can't afford insurance or the only insurance they can afford is so **** poor that it doesn't do them much good anyway. So why is it? Why is anyone against universal healthcare?

Because the concept of equal access to quality healthcare is ********. We do not have the professional capacity within the United States to provide QUALITY health care to all Americans. We do not enough people in the health care profession to ensure that all of those in need of health care receive courteous and quality care.

Now, if we want to go to universal healthcare, to where we're all paying the same amount of money or nothing at all for ****...fine.

But, I'm not interested in paying MORE than others for less, when the quality of my health care is already lacking and I'm paying out of my rear for it.

 

[dawny0826]

I suspect that many Americans who are against universal health care are against it either because they don't understand it, or they willfully refuse to understand it.

Or, we simply understand that it's not all roses. There are a variety of things to consider, both positive and negative. I'm not an expert, but I am privy to a lot of ******** from my mother and sister, both registered nurses, neither of which are fans of the concept of universal health care and their reasons are different than my own, neither of which are fans of Obamacare.

There are good intentions behind the concept of universal health care. And preventive care is a GOOD thing. Having preventive care readily available to people is important. The challenge is that we do not have the professional capacity to accommodate an influx in patients. We can't anticipate QUALITY health care if we implement such a system. We have to anticipate a deterioriation in quality, as we do not have the medical staff to accommodate needs.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Alceste]

Or, we simply understand that it's not all roses. There are a variety of things to consider, both positive and negative. I'm not an expert, but I am privy to a lot of ******** from my mother and sister, both registered nurses, neither of which are fans of the concept of universal health care and their reasons are different than my own, neither of which are fans of Obamacare.

There are good intentions behind the concept of universal health care. And preventive care is a GOOD thing. Having preventive care readily available to people is important. The challenge is that we do not have the professional capacity to accommodate an influx in patients. We can't anticipate QUALITY health care if we implement such a system. We have to anticipate a deterioriation in quality, as we do not have the medical staff to accommodate needs.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I've got my cake and I'm eating it too, eh? We pay half as much for better outcomes under our universal system. There's no influx - people usually only go to the doctor when they're sick, even though it's free. It's not exactly a fun time!

 

[dawny0826]

I've got my cake and I'm eating it too, eh? We pay half as much for better outcomes under our universal system. There's no influx - people usually only go to the doctor when they're sick, even though it's free. It's not exactly a fun time!

Your system is established. Apples and oranges.

I find it asinine to pretend that this type of system will be nothing but cake and fun times in the US. People can believe what they want, but, I know that I'd pay more than others for lesser quality health care.

 

[Copernicus]

Your system is established. Apples and oranges.

I find it asinine to pretend that this type of system will be nothing but cake and fun times in the US. People can believe what they want, but, I know that I'd pay more than others for lesser quality health care.

I can accept that you believe it. I cannot accept that you know it.

 

[Valjean]

Your system is established. Apples and oranges.

I find it asinine to pretend that this type of system will be nothing but cake and fun times in the US. People can believe what they want, but, I know that I'd pay more than others for lesser quality health care.

But it wasn't always established. Weren't all the world's universal systems developed after WWII? Are Americans peculiarly incapable of change?

Actually we already have two already established universal systems, a socialized Beveridge-style system in the VA and a Private NHI-style system in Medicare.
The infrastructure is already in place. It would be easier to extend Medicare universally than it was for Canada to start from scratch in each province.